Well done ref

[sitwell]

It's a blatant foul. As said above, if it had been the other way round there would be multiple threads on here chastising the referee. We got lucky in what was becoming a tricky game.It wasn't a 50/50 ball. Defender was protecting it and Billy wouldn't not have got to it.

It must really fuck you off that it wasn't given. That twat Wilder eh ?

 

[sitwell]

It’s not about sanitising the game or stopping physical contact. It’s not about what he did, it’s about where the ball is. It has to be within your playing distance and it’s not. He’s miles away.

I’m glad it wasn’t given obviously, but it’s a foul!

View attachment 49135

Love these debates though!

I would say that is within playing distance ,both players are going for the ball ,one is just stronger and more determined than the other ,like when players shepherd the ball out for a goalkick, they are never given. Hobbs and the Bolton players to their credit knew the score ,hence the lack of complaints ,after all it is what they base their game on.

 

[s4-blade]

It’s not about sanitising the game or stopping physical contact. It’s not about what he did, it’s about where the ball is. It has to be within your playing distance and it’s not. He’s miles away.

I’m glad it wasn’t given obviously, but it’s a foul!

View attachment 49135

Love these debates though!

as a referee there’s not a chance I’m giving that as a foul

 

[Pinchy]

So you saw them as fouls did you? I never mentioned fouls. I simply pointed out that the referees interpretation was different to mine and consistent throughout the game.
The pretend lawyer jumps in again. Lord knows how he'd perform in a courtroom if he cannot read and understand correctly peoples posts on here. It's as bad as his reading of the game!
He's simply come for a Sunday morning wind up of everyone.

No. You saw them as fouls! You said you thought they should have been given, both against and for us. I’m judging the matter on your terms of reference.

 

[essexblade73]

No way is that a foul. Maybe to the ones who have only seen football in the past 10 years and on Fifa it is, but a good old fashioned shoulder barge is not a foul. Be like basketball if some people had their way, whistle this, whistle that

 

[Gavlar]

In my opinion it's a foul. He's pushed him in the back, not his shoulder.

We would have gone ape if it was the other way.

Still, great win and that's all that matters.

 

[snootyfenooty]

Once saw Mick Jones barge the goalie over the line like that. The ref gave the goal and no one complained.

 

[Sheff de party]

I would say that is within playing distance ,both players are going for the ball ,one is just stronger and more determined than the other ,like when players shepherd the ball out for a goalkick, they are never given. Hobbs and the Bolton players to their credit knew the score ,hence the lack of complaints ,after all it is what they base their game on.

When you shepherd the ball out it’s right there though, we’ll within your playing distance.

Fair points though. Still a foul

 

[INTAKE BLADE]

With all the weight Billy's carrying there was only going to be one winner well done ref.

 

[Guesty]

The ref was at least consistent. On two occasions, Duffy and Norwood were dumped on their arses. They should have been stronger, but plenty of refs would have given a foul (I didn't think they were, for what it's worth).

For the goal, Bolton's defender just has to put his big-boy trousers on there.

 

[Rob86]

If he does that on Friday it could well be given as a foul. Totally 50/50 in terms of whether it will be given or not. I hesitated a bit celebrating as I thought he’s going to blow (felt like one of those days).

What I hadn’t realised live was that the defender didn’t appeal so I think Billy just caught him out and he accepted he was just too casual about dealing with the ball. He was been chased down by a fat lad after all

 

[sitwell]

Once saw Mick Jones barge the goalie over the line like that. The ref gave the goal and no one complained.

He fought the law.

 

[Guesty]

If he does that on Friday it could well be given as a foul. Totally 50/50 in terms of whether it will be given or not. I hesitated a bit celebrating as I thought he’s going to blow (felt like one of those days).

Me too. I also had to glance over to the linesman after the second.

 

[Fanny magnet]

It’s not about sanitising the game or stopping physical contact. It’s not about what he did, it’s about where the ball is. It has to be within your playing distance and it’s not. He’s miles away.

I’m glad it wasn’t given obviously, but it’s a foul!

View attachment 49135

Love these debates though!

I thought so at first but watching the replay on quest ,their lad stops following the ball and moves to block Billy, illy is too strong for him and bounces him off .the defender went looking for it and came off second best

 

[Mumbo]

Ref didn’t see a foul or give a foul so it was NOT a fkn foul,
No one appealed for a foul it was NOT a foul
So unless you watched it in your own little corner of the Multiverse where the ref blew and gave a foul
then it was not or ever can be referred to as a foul.

 

[JohnDenver]

Aside from the legality of it, the defending by that centre back was so bad that he deserved to be put on his arse.

 

[CornwallBlade]

We see it happen time and again when defenders block attackers to allow the ball to go out for a goal kick when winding time down. Never given as a foul. I can see the argument as to why it could be given as a foul, but it’s a contact sport. He used his strength to knock the defender out the way going for the ball. 50/50 I suppose

Good point, I thought I was alone in getting pissed off about defenders shepherding the ball out, often by holding their arms out and sticking their arse in an opponents faces - surely that is obstruction?

 

[finlaytheblade]

It's a blatant foul. As said above, if it had been the other way round there would be multiple threads on here chastising the referee. We got lucky in what was becoming a tricky game.It wasn't a 50/50 ball. Defender was protecting it and Billy wouldn't not have got to it.

HobbS wasn't protecting the ball at all the ball was there to be won and Billy wanted it more. It was a shoulder charge and he timed it perfectly Hobbs was unbalanced and went arse over tit.
Case of an experienced player doing his job,well done Billy

 

[Sheff de party]

Good point, I thought I was alone in getting pissed off about defenders shepherding the ball out, often by holding their arms out and sticking their arse in an opponents faces - surely that is obstruction?

You’re allowed to get your body in the way as long as the ball is within your playing distance. It’s not obstruction unless the ball is too far away to touch basically

 

[tomtheblade]

Ref didn’t see a foul or give a foul so it was NOT a fkn foul,
No one appealed for a foul it was NOT a foul
So unless you watched it in your own little corner of the Multiverse where the ref blew and gave a foul
then it was not or ever can be referred to as a foul.

I don't think anyone's debating whether the foul was or wasn't actually given, just whether it should or shouldn't have been.
Whether it was a foul or not, this logic doesn't make sense. Just because the ref doesn't see it or give it, does not mean it shouldn't have been given. Players will mistakenly appeal all the time, this also doesn't make their opinion true.

If a player karake kicks an opponent in the box and the ref doesn't give it, it's still a penalty by the letter of the law. The player just happened to get away with it, that's what's being discussed in this thread.

 

[tomtheblade]

You’re allowed to get your body in the way as long as the ball is within your playing distance. It’s not obstruction unless the ball is too far away to touch basically

It's an interesting question. I don't know the specifics of the rule but I'm going to assume you're correct about being within playing distance.

There are many occasions when the ball is free, ie. not in anyone's possession or control, and 2 players compete (run) to get it. Perhaps it's a grey area but I'm not sure how reasonable it is to expect the two players to sprint perfectly alongside each other and not use their physicality to gain an advantage in pursuit of the ball. Perhaps the line is between simply placing ones body in a certain position and actively shoving the other player aside. This becomes more up to interpretation from the ref.

In this case, in the frame you showed earlier the ball is not in playing distance of either player so is up for grabs. In the video, it's more clear because we can see that the ball is spinning inwards towards goal, and both players are running to position themselves where it will end up. After looking at it a few times I can see why you'd say it's a foul, as Billy does use his body to effectively upend his opponent and get control of the ball. However, the Bolton player is never actually in control of the ball either, making it more of a 50/50. If you look at Billy's body movement, he uses his shoulder to nudge his opponent aside, a pretty common tactic when competing for a ball which is ahead of both players. If the Bolton player were stronger or had used the same body checking movement vs Billy he wouldn't have fallen over and would've stood a better chance of gaining possession.

Conclusion.. I can see why it'd be given but I wouldn't call it as a clear foul and wrong decision either.

 

[Broomhall Blade]

It's a blatant foul. As said above, if it had been the other way round there would be multiple threads on here chastising the referee. We got lucky in what was becoming a tricky game.It wasn't a 50/50 ball. Defender was protecting it and Billy wouldn't not have got to it.

I think the telling thing is the Defenders reaction, no appeal for a foul just mad with himself for being out thought/muscled.

 

[boo radley]

It’s not about sanitising the game or stopping physical contact. It’s not about what he did, it’s about where the ball is. It has to be within your playing distance and it’s not. He’s miles away.

I’m glad it wasn’t given obviously, but it’s a foul!

View attachment 49135

Love these debates though!

Sorry but I'm with sitwell on this.
Try watching the video from behind the goal it may just change your mind.
If you are judging it as a foul then the foul has to go to Billy and the Bolton player gets sent off.
Billy has only eyes to get to the ball. The Bolton player looks to see where Billy is and block him. If you make the judgement that the ball is out of playing distance then the Bolton player is playing the man so is the one committing the foul. In this game, that is as sitters says is becoming more and more sanitised, then most would expect a foul to be given one way or the other. Thing is, as stated before he was consistent in not giving those decisions for both teams throughout the game. I for one are happy about this, if it happens in every game moving forward, when players go down too easily at the slightest breath from an opposition player.

 

[boo radley]

No. You saw them as fouls! You said you thought they should have been given, both against and for us. I’m judging the matter on your terms of reference.

Oh no your not Widow Twankey.

 

[PokerBlade]

You’re allowed to get your body in the way as long as the ball is within your playing distance. It’s not obstruction unless the ball is too far away to touch basically

The only thing I can think is that the Bolton defender isn't within playing distance either and the ref feels as though he's trying to block Sharp (which he also isn't entitled to do).

I think it was pretty borderline (I'm leaning torwards a foul) and the kind of decision that goes against Billy five times a game until he gets away with one. That's an experienced striker who knows all the tricks and knows he only needs one in his favour.

Only thing I'd say is I'm a big proponent of not moaning about refs in situations where you could've protected yourself. We all know referees make decisions on a whim, so don't be soft as shite in that situation and then two things happen: you might not need to rely on a ref to protect you, the ref is more likely to deem it a foul. Might not be right, but that's the way the game works. If he stands strong then Billy has to knock him flying and the ref is a lot likelier to give a free kick. If it were the other way round, I might be annoyed at the ref but I'd be a lot more annoyed at whichever of our players were that weak facing a challenge.

 

[CornwallBlade]

You’re allowed to get your body in the way as long as the ball is within your playing distance. It’s not obstruction unless the ball is too far away to touch basically

Thanks for the clarification SdP, some defenders must have bloody long legs. I remember trying to hold the ball in the corner as a junior, got lumped in the air from behind and the ref said “serves you right for dicking abaht wi it.” Halcyon days of football

 

[Sheff de party]

Thanks for the clarification SdP, some defenders must have bloody long legs. I remember trying to hold the ball in the corner as a junior, got lumped in the air from behind and the ref said “serves you right for dicking abaht wi it.” Halcyon days of football

Haha, character building I’m sure!

 

[Stu_Blade]

It's an interesting question. I don't know the specifics of the rule but I'm going to assume you're correct about being within playing distance.

This whole "Playing distance" is new to me, if you put it in context with another law for example tripping an apponent if the Bolton player tripped Billy in that situation it would be a foul but if the ball rolled on a few more yards and he tripped him it would still be a foul regardless of "Playing distance" The sport is a non-contact sport and has been for many years but in this occasion the referee in his opinion didnt see anything wrong with it and that is all that counts

 

[SHOREHAMST.com]

It’s excellent forward play by Billy Sharp in that it was a no-lose scenario. Turning a ball he was never going to get, in to a situation where, at worst, Bolton get a free-kick. And at best, well - exactly what happened.

But, for me, it’s a foul. It’s not 50/50 - he comes on his blind side, from behind.

I don’t really care though. Billy uses all his experience to realise that it’s one of those instances where some see a foul and some don’t. As proven by this thread.

 

[PokerBlade]

http://www.thefa.com/football-rules.../football-11-11/law-12---fouls-and-misconduct

"IMPEDING THE PROGRESS OF AN OPPONENT WITHOUT CONTACT

Impeding the progress of an opponent means moving into the opponent’s path to obstruct, block, slow down or force a change of direction when the ball is not within playing distance of either player.

All players have a right to their position on the field of play; being in the way of an opponent is not the same as moving into the way of an opponent.

A player may shield the ball by taking a position between an opponent and the ball if the ball is within playing distance and the opponent is not held off with the arms or body. If the ball is within playing distance, the player may be fairly charged by an opponent."

So many people seem to get wound up by the shielding the ball out so here's the rule most relevant.

This is also why when you see players shielding the ball in the corner to run the clock down you'll see the ref give a free kick against them seemingly arbitrarily.

On the Sharp goal, the more I watch it the more I think the ref sees that the defender is moving across and Billy has no obligation to move out the way for him. Still think it's borderline and you'll see it given as often as not.